Next Article in Journal
Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis Lineages in the Nasal and Skin Microbiota of Patients Planned for Arthroplasty Surgery
Next Article in Special Issue
Natural Antimicrobials Suitable for Combating Desiccation-Resistant Salmonella enterica in Milk Powder
Previous Article in Journal
Bacterial Diversity and Community Composition Distribution in Cold-Desert Habitats of Qinghai–Tibet Plateau, China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Development of a Genoserotyping Method for Salmonella Infantis Detection on the Basis of Pangenome Analysis
Article

Control of Salmonella and Pathogenic E. coli Contamination of Animal Feed Using Alternatives to Formaldehyde-Based Treatments

1
Animal and Plant Health Agency, Woodham Lane, Addlestone, Surrey KT15 3NB, UK
2
Surveillance and Laboratory Services, Animal and Plant Health Agency, Rougham Hill, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk IP33 2RX, UK
3
Anitox, 7 Regent Park, Northants NN8 6GR, UK
4
Department of Pathology and Infectious Diseases, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Surrey, Veterinary School Main Building, Daphne Jackson Road, Guildford GU2 7AL, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: María-Jesús Grilló
Microorganisms 2021, 9(2), 263; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9020263
Received: 5 January 2021 / Revised: 20 January 2021 / Accepted: 22 January 2021 / Published: 27 January 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Salmonella and Salmonellosis)
This study compared a novel non-formaldehyde combination product developed for pathogen control in animal feed Finio (A), with a panel of three commonly used organic acid feed additive products: Fysal (B), SalCURB K2 (C) and Salgard (D). Products were evaluated for their ability to reduce Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 and avian pathogenic Escherichia coli in poultry feed. A commercial layer-hen mash was treated with each product and then mixed with feed previously contaminated (via inoculated meat and bone meal) with either Salmonella or E. coli. After 24 h at room temperature, 10 replicate samples were taken from each preparation and plate counts were performed using a selective agar. All concentrations of product A (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 kg per metric tonne (MT)) plus the higher concentration of products B and D (6.0 kg MT−1) significantly reduced Salmonella counts compared with those in the untreated control group (p < 0.05). Product C did not significantly reduce levels of Salmonella under these conditions. Because of the poor recovery of E. coli, statistical comparisons for this organism were limited in scope, but only product A at the highest concentration appeared to have eliminated it. View Full-Text
Keywords: Salmonella; E. coli; feed; food safety; biocontrol Salmonella; E. coli; feed; food safety; biocontrol
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Gosling, R.J.; Mawhinney, I.; Richardson, K.; Wales, A.; Davies, R. Control of Salmonella and Pathogenic E. coli Contamination of Animal Feed Using Alternatives to Formaldehyde-Based Treatments. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 263. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9020263

AMA Style

Gosling RJ, Mawhinney I, Richardson K, Wales A, Davies R. Control of Salmonella and Pathogenic E. coli Contamination of Animal Feed Using Alternatives to Formaldehyde-Based Treatments. Microorganisms. 2021; 9(2):263. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9020263

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gosling, Rebecca J., Ian Mawhinney, Kurt Richardson, Andrew Wales, and Rob Davies. 2021. "Control of Salmonella and Pathogenic E. coli Contamination of Animal Feed Using Alternatives to Formaldehyde-Based Treatments" Microorganisms 9, no. 2: 263. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9020263

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop